« | »

Reuters: Smaller Protests Prove More Anti-War

More of their patented photo-shopping of reality from Reuters:


[Reuters caption:] A pair of soldier’s boots rests on a flag-draped casket as thousands of anti-war protesters rally on the National Mall in Washington, January 27, 2007.

U.S. protests shrink while antiwar sentiment grows

By Andy Sullivan

Crowds at antiwar rallies in Washington have dwindled even as U.S. opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, as organizers feud and participants question the effectiveness of the street protests.

Rival antiwar groups, which in years past jointly sponsored massive rallies on the National Mall, have promoted separate protests recently or decided to steer clear of the capital altogether.

The thinning crowds stand in contrast to the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era, which grew as the war progressed.

Activists and experts say divisions among peace groups, along with other factors like the lack of a draft, fatigue about the war and the rise of the Internet, have all contributed to the declining turnout.

Sparse turnout — fewer than 1,000 at a rally on Saturday, according to local media reports — could undermine the goal of forcing an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, participants say.

“When you have demonstrations in which the turnout is not terribly impressive, that gives politicians the sense that people may oppose the war but nobody’s really going to pay a price,” said Peter Kuznik, an American University history professor and antiwar protester

Saturday’s protest, sponsored by the Troops Out Now Coalition, came two weeks after an antiwar event sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, which drew roughly 10,000 people. ANSWER also sponsored a rally in March.

The groups’ agendas are similar, opposing what they call “imperialist” U.S. policy not only in Iraq but toward countries like Cuba and Iran — which has alienated some supporters

Both groups’ leaders were associated with the Workers World Party, which advocates a shift toward a Soviet-style planned economy. But a 2004 dispute prompted some members to form the splinter Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Members of the splinter group stayed active in the ANSWER Coalition, and the remaining members of the Workers World Party formed the Troops Out Now Coalition, Troops Out Now spokesman Dustin Langley said.

Another antiwar group, United for Peace and Justice, has refused to work with ANSWER since a joint rally in 2005…

Antiwar leaders say recent smaller protests reflect new tactics, not disorganization. Smaller activist groups like Code Pink have been a colorful, disruptive presence at congressional hearings and appearances by Bush administration officials

Largely absent from the actions are young people, who were the majority of Vietnam-era protesters — perhaps because they do not risk being drafted into the military or from a sense that they can express their opposition to the war on the Internet, rather than on the streets, Isserman said.

In other Reuters-like news: “Newspaper Readership Soars, While Circulation Hits Record Lows.”

Note how it is only now, when our watchdog media is searching for some explanation as to why the anti-war protests are so spectacularly unsuccessful, that they bother to mention any of the bizarre coalitions behind these events.

[A] 2004 dispute prompted some members to form the splinter Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Members of the splinter group stayed active in the ANSWER Coalition, and the remaining members of the Workers World Party formed the Troops Out Now Coalition, Troops Out Now spokesman Dustin Langley said.

Another antiwar group, United for Peace and Justice, has refused to work with ANSWER since a joint rally in 2005..

But hilariously the article has find excuses in a split that occurred more than three years ago and other disagreements that happened more than two years ago.

Weren’t these supposed to have been the salad days of the anti-war protests? The days of the highest turnouts?

Amazingly, the article even hints at the fact that some of the protesters might not have America’s best interests at heart:

Both groups’ leaders were associated with the Workers World Party, which advocates a shift toward a Soviet-style planned economy.

Well that is one way of sugar-coating a hardcore revolutionary Communist organization.

Here is how Discover The Networks describes them:

Workers World Party

The Workers World Party (WWP) is a Marxist-Leninist sect that was founded in 1959 by Sam Marcy. Marcy and his followers were members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) until 1958, when they split from SWP because, unlike that organization, they supported the… 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, and the regime of Mao Zedong in China…

Advocating socialist revolution and the abolition of private property in the United States, WWP is a staunch supporter of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il…

WWP also supported the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. During the Cold War it always sided with the Communists, against America. In the 1960s, Marcy himself led demonstrations against the Vietnam War and called for the victory of the Vietcong.

Still, isn’t it funny how our watchdog media have never mentioned the names of these crackpot groups in any of the tens of thousands of fawning stories about the anti-war demonstrations they have previously produced.

But an excuse for the low crowd numbers must be found. So Reuters suddenly discovers that International ANSWER, United For Peace And Justice, Code Pink and the Workers World Party are “radicals”:

The groups’ agendas are similar, opposing what they call “imperialist” U.S. policy not only in Iraq but toward countries like Cuba and Iran — which has alienated some supporters…

Never mind that these are precisely the same people who have come out for every so-called anti-war demonstration in the US for the last ten years.

This is what passes for “journalism” in the 21st century.

Note too that even in an article describing the decreasing numbers for these protests Reuters could not bring themselves to publish a photograph of the sparse turnout.

Indeed, there is not one wire service photo out there of this weekend’s DC crowd.

Why is that? Even this article shows that this is news.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Reuters: Smaller Protests Prove More Anti-War”

  1. Lurkin_no_mo

    All Bush’s fault?
    Heck, and I thought it was because MUSLIM EXTREMISTS flew airplanes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Man, I need to read more left wing rags..er, I mean thoughtful editorials and watch more alphabet news casts. Evidently I’m just not with the program.
    1968. Draft BAD!
    2008. Draft GOOD!
    Make up your freakin’ minds liberal scums of the earth.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »